tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 16 06:19:09 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Q
- From: [email protected] (Soqra'tIS)
- Subject: Re: Q
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:19:19 -0500
nughItlhta' ~mark charghwI' marqoS je:
>"William H. Martin" <[email protected]> writes:
>\ According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>\ >
>\ > ... I don't like pIqaD all that much.
>\ >
>\ > ~mark
>\
>\ pIqaD qaq law' *Kirk* qaq puS.
>\
>\ charghwI'
>jIQochbe'. 'ach Dochvam vItlhobnIS:
>``The pIqaD is more preferable than Kirk''? Hmmm. The English gloss,
>at least, is patently redundant. Do we have any canon evidence of 'qaq' being
>used this way? The definition in TKD ("be preferable") seems inherently
>comparative, not requiring the law'/puS construction. There's no
>indication of how to express the thing to which the subject is preferable,
>but it seems a logical role to be filled by the object: {pIqaD qaq *Kirk*}.
<...vIteqlu'pu'...>
Perhaps the gloss for {pIqaD qaq law' *Kirk* qaq puS} should have read {HoD
*pIqarD* qaq law' HoD *Kirk* qaq puS} ?? Methinks he was punning on
Picard/pIqaD and prefers the Capt. who is secure in his baldness versus one
who feels he must hide his??
veqlarghmo' vIghItlh >}};-)
MHO, your milage may vary
*loy'Ir*mo' vIghItlh >}};-)
vay' yIHub Hoch 'ej Hoch tIHub vay' - DumaS
-------------------------------------------------
vIta'pu'be' !!! tlhIngan ghaH *Bart Simpson*'e'
Soqra'tIS [email protected]